An Evangelical Christian pollster finds that atheists commit less crimes, divorce less, and are better educated than their fellow Christians. “It is obvious that you do not have to believe in a higher power in order to live a moral and successful life. Quite the opposite,” the Knoxville News‘ Al Westerfield writes of the study, adding that “the groups with the highest crime rate, the poorest marriages and the lowest education continually strive to force their beliefs on the nonreligious. And the politicians pander to them. Why else would they pass laws to put religion in the schools and on courthouse facades? And then they wonder why the godless could possibly be upset.”

“According to a Barna Research Group report, fundamentalist Christians have the highest divorce rate, followed by Jews and Baptists,” Westerfield writes:

Quote

The godless are tied with Catholics and Lutherans for the lowest divorce rate. It seems that some groups that claim to follow the Bible most strictly are not putting their money where their mouths are. The godless who are thought to be without morals seem to take their vows more seriously.

According to a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Survey, the least-educated Americans are Jehovah’s Witnesses, followed by black Protestants and fundamentalist Christians. The most highly educated are reformed Jews, followed by Unitarian Universalists and the godless.

Some groups seem to like their flocks ignorant so that pastors’ interpretations of God’s edicts are not questioned. Other groups prize scholarship and achieve more in their lives here on Earth.

In fact, a review of worldwide studies found that criminality and religion go hand in hand. The countries with the most religious people have the highest crime rates, highest sexually transmitted diseases and the highest teen pregnancy rates.

This is also true in the United States. The more religious a state’s population, the higher the crime, STD and teen pregnancy rates. The report does say that the religious are happier than the secular but posits that the ostracism of the latter may be a major cause.

It seems that when Christians go on about "all the evil in the world", it's they who are doing it...

I appeal to all Christians to stop your destruction of society and join in a reasonable approach to life.

Christianity is full of moral shape-shifters, that are able to fit themselves into new and exciting pseudo-principles wherever and whenever they need a new sense of superiority to brag about. Four hundred years ago they could justify burning folks at the stake for whatever reason might justify a hot dog roast. And 150 years ago they could justify slavery, pointing out the various passages in the bible to justify kidnapping and abusing hundreds and thousands of innocent victims (edit: oops, make that millions). These days, in bed with big business, they can justify each and every example of economic and environmental abuse by saying "It can't be wrong. Someone is making a profit!" And then they make a big deal out of anything marginal or too icky to admit involvement in (abortion, gays) just to make themselves known.

The selfishness of their tiny world, where they know all that needs be known and demand to be the only ones who can make demands, undoes most of the good they could actually do as human beings. When people are pious only because they hope god notices, and generous only because they read somewhere Jesus was sometimes too, there is no morality there. There is behavior that is based on self-interest, not human interest.

High divorce rates are only one of the measures of a failed moral standard. Not the divorce itself, but the simultaneous insistence that such things are against gods will. Normally. You know, when others do it. Newt Gingrich, who values marriage so much that he's done it three times, can condemn while he does the same thing without noticing. And Pat Robertson, blaming gays on everything from hurricanes to farts, epitomizes the inability of the righteously religious to set and/or keep any useful standards, of behavior or anything else. Freely pinning every upsetting event on others and condemning "sinners" while surreptitiously involved in exactly the same disssed activity, both are example of religious double standards and religious non-standards. But they are not examples of moral standards.

And then, to pile on the bandwagon and proclaim that we are all bad because of an apple-loving lady 6,000 years ago, then providing a get-out-of-jail free card if you'll just accept JC (start tithing at our church), is an effort to control anything and everything, an attitude which hasn't a single moral component. Instead of paying attention to the real causes of human misbehavior, instead of looking at our own wrongs and trying to change them, the righteous insist that they have all the answers, and then otherwise stay out of any effort aimed at human reform, social reform, moral reform, etc. If it doesn't involve saying you're sorry to god and kissing the kids behind, then it ain't gonna work anyway.

And as for the methodists who don't get divorced as much as other religions. They would get divorced at similar rates, but someone might find out, and their self-image as perfect might be damaged. So even the arbitrary morals standards chosen by the cited article are inaccurate because they are measuring socially stigmatizing activities, something many methodists can't be caught doing, no matter how bad they want to. That isn't morality, it is a fear of being found out.

Morality cannot spring from ignorance. There is nothing there to base it on. And when you toss in the propensity to claim the moral high ground by fiat and damn anything to the contrary, in the end, most religious thought on the subject is so inane as to make mental illness seem benign in comparison.

Damn it Graybeard, you got me started again. Don't do that!

NOTE: This was intended as a response to another thread, but I somehow accidentally changed the subject and it looks like a new one. My bad. I've asked mods to fix it.

Small typo fixed GB

« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 08:45:38 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21 (KJV)

So, not everyone who identifies as a Christian for demographic or polling purposes really is one.

That is what people often say when confronted with facts like these--evil sinners show up in the stats and make all the good Christians look bad.. That explains why the Bible Belt has higher rates of every dysfunction than the secular northern states--they are not "really" Christians. Well, if the born-again southern Baptists aren't really Christians, I don't know who is. Christians identify with some religious structure, and believe in god even if they can't follow all the rules. But the point is, they are not atheists.

Still doesn't explain why atheists manage to live as decently, and sometimes more decently without any god-belief than people who are religious. This holds around the world, where the countries like Japan and Denmark, where the smallest percentages of people identify as religious, have lower crime rates, less poverty, less family disruption, better health care and education levels, etc than the countries like Haiti and Bangladesh, where most people identify as religious.

And then, to pile on the bandwagon and proclaim that we are all bad because of an apple-loving lady 6,000 years ago, then providing a get-out-of-jail free card if you'll just accept JC (start tithing at our church), is an effort to control anything and everything, an attitude which hasn't a single moral component.

So this is kinda tangential but reading this made me wonder...

Let's say the whole 'salvation through Jesus' thing is true - that Jesus had made the sacrifice to absolve mankind of sin.

In terms of Christianity, what is the moral evaluation of this stance:"God, I realize that you sent your only son Jesus down here to die for humanity's sins. Thank you, Lord, but I want to do the right thing and take the responsibility for my failings. I recognize that Jesus was willing to make a sacrifice to take that responsibility away from me, but I would like to atone for my own sins. If hellfire is the only way to atone, so be it. I reject Jesus' offer to be punished in my place to wash away my sins. I will take the punishment myself."

Would that be viewed as moral or not?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

None you went and did it jdawg. You just started the "First Christian Church of Our Voluntary Hell", and now we have to deal with that one too. You gotta be careful what you say and/or suggest around here. Eavesdroppers abound!

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Let's say the whole 'salvation through Jesus' thing is true - that Jesus had made the sacrifice to absolve mankind of sin.

In terms of Christianity, what is the moral evaluation of this stance:"God, I realize that you sent your only son Jesus down here to die for humanity's sins. Thank you, Lord, but I want to do the right thing and take the responsibility for my failings. I recognize that Jesus was willing to make a sacrifice to take that responsibility away from me, but I would like to atone for my own sins. If hellfire is the only way to atone, so be it. I reject Jesus' offer to be punished in my place to wash away my sins. I will take the punishment myself."

Would that be viewed as moral or not?

I suspect many Christians would see that as denying Jesus' divinity, since according to mainstream Christian doctrine only Jesus could take all mankind's sin on himself. Not only that, someone who made that statement would be attempting to usurp Jesus' power, claiming divinity for themselves.

Naughty, naughty.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

Let's say the whole 'salvation through Jesus' thing is true - that Jesus had made the sacrifice to absolve mankind of sin.

In terms of Christianity, what is the moral evaluation of this stance:"God, I realize that you sent your only son Jesus down here to die for humanity's sins. Thank you, Lord, but I want to do the right thing and take the responsibility for my failings. I recognize that Jesus was willing to make a sacrifice to take that responsibility away from me, but I would like to atone for my own sins. If hellfire is the only way to atone, so be it. I reject Jesus' offer to be punished in my place to wash away my sins. I will take the punishment myself."

Would that be viewed as moral or not?

Good question jdawg... maybe this needs its own thread?

I may sound totally like a heathen, but I always wondered in my theistic-days just how tough/legitimate a "sacrifice" this jeezus character allegedly even pulled off? Granted, scourging and crucifiction are no picnic, but it was fairly quick, he died and hung out with dad, then magically was alive and well again. All in all, not too bad for taking on the "sins of the whole world." Besides, there's no evidence the Romans went to the trouble the bible and Mel Gibson infer with even the hardened criminals.

I think of numerous true tales of children who are tortured in unimaginable ways for months or years on end by sadistic parents (too often the fundie variety) and they die alone, a shriveled lump on a cold, urine-stained floor having been half-starved their whole life or having lived in a dog kennel. That's a sacrifice worth noting, not some god doing himself in for his own rules...

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is. - neopagan

I may sound totally like a heathen, but I always wondered in my theistic-days just how tough/legitimate a "sacrifice" this jeezus character allegedly even pulled off? Granted, scourging and crucifiction are no picnic, but it was fairly quick, he died and hung out with dad, then magically was alive and well again.

It goes beyond even that, really. Remember, we're talking about a person who was supposedly omnipotent. Now, put yourself in his place: if you're omnipotent, and you, for whatever reason, have decided to allow yourself to be crucified, aren't you at the very least going to choose not to feel any pain?

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

None you went and did it jdawg. You just started the "First Christian Church of Our Voluntary Hell", and now we have to deal with that one too. You gotta be careful what you say and/or suggest around here. Eavesdroppers abound!

I suspect many Christians would see that as denying Jesus' divinity, since according to mainstream Christian doctrine only Jesus could take all mankind's sin on himself. Not only that, someone who made that statement would be attempting to usurp Jesus' power, claiming divinity for themselves.

Naughty, naughty.

That seems like a likely response. From there I imagine the discussions would go any number of directions (nature of free will, objective morality, god's responsibility, etc.).

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I may sound totally like a heathen, but I always wondered in my theistic-days just how tough/legitimate a "sacrifice" this jeezus character allegedly even pulled off? Granted, scourging and crucifiction are no picnic, but it was fairly quick, he died and hung out with dad, then magically was alive and well again. All in all, not too bad for taking on the "sins of the whole world." Besides, there's no evidence the Romans went to the trouble the bible and Mel Gibson infer with even the hardened criminals.

These days I find it weird that I never really questioned this sacrifice...the legitimacy of the sacrifice, the need for a sacrifice, etc. It just never occurred to me.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21 (KJV)

So, not everyone who identifies as a Christian for demographic or polling purposes really is one.

So would you agree that there is no point relying on polls on a country's religious demographic to make statements like "this is a Christian country"? Of course you would, because clearly most of those who identify as Christian aren't REALLY Christians, so we can discount them.

It is so bogus to say that the Christian people who do bad things "are not really Christians". Don't they say that "everyone is an evil sinner"? They are just proving the truth of that statement. Except atheists are not sinning nearly as much as they are....

Also, you can't use big numbers to support the religion, either. You can't say that, because there are 2 billion people on earth who believe in it, Christianity is right. Because you can't know how many of those 2 billion are just phoning it in, can you? Most of these so-called Christians are actually atheists who lie about their religious beliefs on anonymous surveys.

We have to remember that the next time someone tries the argument from popularity--"Well, they can't all be wrong, so there must be some truth to it, right?" Slap 'em right back with the one true Scotsman--"Obviously, most of them are not really Christians, because look at the polls on how many do bad things?"

And what does it say about us atheists, behaving nicely, being all moral and sh!t? Are we secretly religious and just not telling anyone? Not even in secret polls?